
357 



'A 



.6^^ A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. 



SPEECH 



OP 



! X-'* 



HON. CHARLES BILLmCHUMT, 

OF WISCONSIN, 

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 9, 1856. 



The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the 
Wate of the Union — 

Mr. BILLINGHURST said: 

Mr. Chairman: Availingmyself of the present 
occasion to submit a fev/ observations to the 
House and to the country, I shall mainly take 
for my text the last annual message of the Presi- 
dent of the United States, or passages in said 
message which I think are justly entitled to un- 
sparing animadversion. That executive pronun- 
ciamento was, as is well remembered, thrust 
upon us, the Representatives of the people, most 
ungraciously, and it wiSl also be remembered that 
it found none here so poor as to do it reverence. 
It has never been received— never read in the 
House — a just rebuke of a tyrannical Executive 
who forgets the " decent respect" which is ever 
due to the popular branch of Government, The 
people make and unmake Presidents, and some- 
times Presidents unmake themselves. There is 
no way so sure to accomplish this last act as for 
the President to treat the people or their chosen 
Representatives with contumely. 

Inasmuch as the President seems to have no 
friend in the House to bring to light this most 
remarkable document, I propose to dig it up from 
the mass of matter under which it lies buried on 
the Speaker's table, that I may review some of 
its salient points, fairly and with even-handed 
justice, that the friends and defenders of the Pres- 
ident (if indeed he has any remaining since the 
assembling and terrible, if not most ungrateful, 
action of the Cincinnati Convention) may^ have 
an opportunity to defend the great rejected candi- 
date. 

The President, in his message, asks, with 
much put-on unction, '^ What is the voice of 
history?" He should have paid some heed to 
the old maxim, " Sufficient unto the day is the 
evil thereof," before he turned historian. Sins 
enough in the practical administration of the Gov- 
ernment were daily committed, at his hands, 
without adding to them the falsification of the 
history of our country. The honest historian 



chronicles the virtues as well as the vices of the 
times and of the country; but President Pierce, 
like a feed attorney, appears as the advocate of 
one section of his country against the other, and 
that other the section in which he has ever had 
his home, and where he was born and reared. 

" What is the voice of history?" he asks, and 
then talks of Florida as an acquisition demanded 
by the whole Union !— of Louisiana, and declares 
it a mere delusion to say that she was an acquisi- 
tion in the special interest of the South !— of Tex^ 
as, whilst out of the Union, and of the efforts 
made to prevent her annexation, as a " system- 
atized attempt to intervene in the domestic affairs 
of one section of the Union in defiance of their 
rights as States, and of the stipulations of the 
Constitution." But he boasts that the Consti- 
tution triumphed over sectional prejudice and the 
political errors of the day, and that Texas came 
into the Union with the chosen institutions of 
her people. 

In the passage of the compromise measures 
of 1850, he again eulogizes 'the Constitution as 
signally triumphing, and is especially gratified 
that among those measures the fugitive slave 
law has invaded the rights of the States— that is, 
that that law of CongVess, whether unconstitu- 
tional or otherwise, which was framed and passed 
to please the South, with the knowledge that it 
would be distasteful to the North, does invade 
and attempt to nullify the guarantied State rights 
of his own section of the Union. For the passage 
of this act he assumes to rejoice and be most 
glad. 

The Territories of Utah, New Mexico, Wash- 
ington, Nebraska, and Kansas are prominent 
points of historical review. Incidentally the 
President alludes to an antiquated piece of legis- 
lation called the " ordinance of 1787," for the 
governmentof the territory northwest of the Ohio, 
as having had a place upon the statute-books for 
two or three years, and then been superseded by the 
Constitution, when it ceased to remain as a law! 
He is certainly entitled to credit for magnanimity 
in admitting that a recollection of that ordinance 



/ 






existed down to the year of our Lord 1820; but 

there, at that point, the Executive historian loses 

all sight or recollection of it. He, however, finds 

another piece of mere formal legislation upon the 

tatute-books at that period, growing out of an 

"•vanescent controversy" called the Missouri 

■promise," of " most douHtful con^titutiou- 

" and he styles it " the dormant letter of 

' .■" Capital idea that ! 

ilk thee, Jew, for teaching me that word !" 

i was dormant. It did sleep, guarded, 
lied over, protected, undisti>rbed, but rcrerefZ 
Jie great and good men of the nation forthirty- 
tiiree years, until 1854, when it was about to 
awake and take on vitality. Then it was that the 
President and his reckless coadjutors gave it the 
death-blow. "Dormant !" did he say ? Yes, it 
slept, but had another class of as vigilant watch- 
ers who made it the sleeji that knew no waking. 

I will not now go further with his Excellency 
into other points of history t^ which he alludes, 
although it might be both profitable and interest- 
ing to do so, but will say, just here, that if his 
history had been accurate, as well as complete, it 
would have saved me much labor. It is a duty 
we all owe to our country, as it seems to me, 
when we find its history falsified by authors, or 
men in high places, to expose and correct it, and 
thus, as cotemporaries, occupying resjjonsible 
positions in the councils of the nation, supply any 
material omissions which we may discover. 

As the humblest of tlie body I am a member 
of, 1 will cheerfully undertake to execute my part 
of this duty. And first, 1 shall speak of the ordi- 
nance of 1787, which, the President says, was 
superseded by the Constitution, and ceased to 
remain as a law, &c. 

This ordinance was adopted by the Congress 
of the Confederacy. It related to territory which 
had been ceded to the Confederacy. The territory 
was outside of the States. The ordinance was an 
act outside of the Articles of Confederation; and 
that portion of it relating to the slavery question 
was, in terms, an express and solemn compact, 
as follows: * 

" It is hereby ordiiined and declared by the authority 
aforesaid, that the lollowinij article.s shall be coiisiileri'd as 
articles of a compact between the original States and the 
people and States in said Territory, and forever remain 
unalterable, unless by common consent. 

" Art. 6. — There shall neilher be slaverj' nor involun- 
tary servitude iTi the said Territory, otherwise than in pun 
ishnient of crime, whereof the party shall haye been duly 
convicted : Proiiiled, always, That any person escaping into 
the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in 
any oue of the original Stales, such fugitive may be lawfully 
reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming ins or licr 
labor or service, as aioresaid." 

Now I beg to ask what article or section of the 
Constitution repealed this ordinance, or how did 
the Constitution, which was framed for the gov- 
ernment of the States (:uul not for Territories) 
supersede this organic law of the T(;rritory .' Was 
it that clause which reads ns follows? 

" Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all 
needful rules ahd regulations respeclinp the Territory, and 
Other property belonging to the United Stales. 

It could not be, for this relates to the Territory 



SiS property. It is indeed difficult to understand 
how the Constitution superseded this ordinance. 
So far as the Constitution contravenes any of the 
provisions of the ordinance, the Constitution is 
unquestionably paramount. As States have been j 
from time to time, formed from this Territory, 
their constitutions, so far a!3 they have trenched 
upon the ordinance, have superseded that instru- 
ment; but in every one of the States formed 
therein, this same ordinance, in some of its fea- 
tures, is now self-operative, and so recognized by 
judicial decisions. I ask, who of the north- 
western States does not recognize the validity 
of the following clause in it? 

"The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and 
St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, 
shall be common-highways, and forever free, as well to the 
inhabitants of said Territory as to the citizens of tiie United 
Stales, and those of any other States that may be admitted 
into the Confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty, 
tlierefor." 

Repeatedly has this ordinance been held to be 
in force by the courts. No new or other legisla- 
tion has been had to give it vitality. As States 
have been formed, from time to time, out of this 
territory, or within its boundaries, the ordinance 
has been in force over what of said territory 
still remained, and more than once has it been 
extended to other territories. It was extended 
over Louisiana, with the exception of the sixth 
article already referred to. 

In relation to this sixth article, and the Mis- 
souri compromise, the President discourses thus: 

" This provision ceased to remain as a law, for its opera- 
tion as such was absolutely superseded by the Constitution. 
But the recollection of the fact excited the zeal of social 
propagandism in some sections of the Confederalion ; and, 
vvlien a second State, that of Missouri, came to be formeU 
in the Territory of Louisiana, a proposition vveis made to 
extend to the latter Territory the restriction originally 
applied to the country situated between the rivers Ohio 
and Mississippi. 

"Most questionable as was this proposition in all its 
constitutional relations, nevertheless it received the sanc- 
tion of Congress, with some sliglit modifications of line, to 
save the existing rights of the intended new States. It was 
reluctantly acquiesced in by southern States as a sacrifice 
to the cause of peace and of the Union, not only of the 
rights stipulated by the treaty of Louisiana, but of the prin- 
ciple of equality among the States guarantied by the Con- 
stitution. It was received by the northern States with 
angry and rcscnrfol condemnation and complaint, because 
it (lid nol coneeib* all which they had exactingly demanded. 
Having passed llirongh the forms of legislation, it took its 
place in the statute-book, standing open to repeal, like any 
other act of doubtful constitutionality, subject to be pro- 
nounced null and void by the courts of law, and possess- 
ing no possible efficacy to control the rights of the States 
which might thereat'ter be organized out of any part of tlie 
orighial Territory of Louisiana. 

•' In all this, if any a:;gression there were, any innova- 
tion upon pii'i\\isiiiig riL'lits, to which portion of the Union 
are they justly chargeable.^ 

" This controversy passed away with the occasion, noth- 
ing surviving it save the dormant letter of the statute. Rut 
long atterwards, when, by the proiwsed accession of the 
llepiiblic of Texas, the United States were to take their 
next step in territorial greatness, a similar contingency 
occurred, and became the occasion for systematized at- 
tempts to intervime in the doiiiestic .(ilHirs of one section 
<>l' the Union, in detiance of tlicir riglits as St.ites, and of the 
atipulations of the Constitution. These nitimpts assumed 
a practical direction, in the shape of persevniin; cmleavora 
by some of the representatives of both House- oi'Congress 
to deprive the southern States of the supposid btnetit of 
the provisions of the ael authorizing the organization of the 
Stale of iMissouri. 



*' But the good sense of the people, and, the vital force of 
'the Constitution, triumphed over sectional prejudice and 
the political errors of the day, and the State oi" Texas re- 
turned to the Union as she was, with social institutions 
which her people had chosen for tlieinselves, and with ex- 
press agreement, by the reannexing act, that she should be 
susceptible of subdivision into a plurality of State*." 

Thus discourses Mr. President Pierce on tlie 
aubject of the ordinance of 1787, and the action 
of Congress and the people thereon at different 
pesiods since its enactment. He should know, 
if he does not, v^hat every intelligent, American 
citizen knows, that the first Congress assembled 
under the Constitution reenacted this very ordi- 
nance by the following act, being the eighth act 
of that session: 

"»2n act to provide for the go vernment of the territory north- 
west of the Ohio river. 

'' Whereas, in order that the ordinance of the United 
Slates in Congress assembled, for the government of the 
territory northwest of the river Ohio, may continue to have 
fisll effect, it is requisite that certain provisions should be 
snade, so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution 
of the United States : 

" Be it enactcJ by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
Thatin all cases in which bythe said^ordinauce any inform- 
ation is to be given, or communication made, by the Gov- 
ernor of the said Territory to the United States in Congress 
assembled, or to any of their officers, it shall be the duty 
of the said Governor to give such information, and to make 
such communication to the Presidentof the United States; 
and the President shall nominate, and, by and with the 
advice and conscntof the Senate, shall appoint, all officers 
which, by 'the said ordinance, were to have been appointed' 
by the United States in Congress assembled ; and all officers 
soappninted shall be commissioned by him ; and in all cases 
where the United States in Congress assembled might, by 
the said ordinance, revi)ke any commission, or remove from 
any office, the President is hereby declared to have the 
same powers of revocation and removal. 

"Sec. 2. Jlnd be it further enacted , That in case of the 
death, removal, or resignation, or necessary absence of the 
Governor of the said Territory, the Secretary thereof shall 
Jje, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute 
all the powers and perform all Ihe duties of the Governor 
during the vacancy occasioned by the removal, resignation, 
»jr necessary absence of the said Governor." 

All cause of cavil was removed by this act. 
But President Pierce says to Congress and the 
country, " it ceased to remain as a law." I will 
not insult the good sense of the House by at- 
tempting to refute this executive declaration, as 
everybody knows that the validity of*he ordi- 
nance of 1787 is not to be thus repudiated. Mr. 
President Pierce may discharge his puny arrows 
at it from now until the 4th of March next, and 
the old ordinance will still stand unhurt, and 
unbattered even. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I propose to call to the 
minds of those who hear me, or who may take 
the trouble to read my speech when published, 
some recollection of sundry points in our' legisla- 
tive history omitted by the historian-President. 

The legislation for "Oregon finds no place in his 
history, 

Tha"t for Minnesota has no place in his his- 
tory, 

That for the two free States to be formed out 
of the Territory of Texas finds no place in his 
history, 

That for California, as a free State, finds none; 

The legislation relative to the proviso con- 
nected with the settlement of the boundary line 



between Texas and New Mexico, finds no place 
in his history, 

The local Mexican law prohibiting slavery in 
Utah and New Mexico, finds no place there; 

Nor does the legislation to suppress the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia, one of the 
compromises of 1850, find any place in his his- 
tory. 

Oh, no; this most impartial historian-President 
could not condescend to give a truthful and an 
impartial history of the legislation of the coun- 
try relative to the vexed question of slavery. It 
was too much for his nerves to bear, just as he 
was framing his imessage with a view to make a 
strong and most desperate bid for the whole 
southern vote in the Cincinnati convention. So 
he framed his history to tickle the ears of south- 
ern politicians. And how have his labors been 
rewarded? 

The President, however, deserves to be credited 
with the ingenious discovery of a point entirely 
new in our legislative history. Or, if he did not 
discover or invent it, he had the honor of learn- 
ing it and first spreading it before the public, in a 
most grandiloquent strain. It succeeds the clause 
in the message in which he consecrates the com- 
promise measures of 1850, and thus reads: 

" Vain declamation regarding the provisions of law for 
the extradition of fugitives from service, with occasional 
episodes of frantic effort to obstruct their execution by riot 
and murder, continued for a brief time to agitate certain 
localities." 

There — that is rhetorical, if not historical. I 
now come to the point: 

" But the true principle, of leaving each State and Ter- 
ritory to regulate its own laws of labor according to its 
own sense of right and expediency, had acquired fast hold 
of the public judgment to such a degree that, by common 
consent, it was observed in the organization of the Terri- 
tory of Washington." 

The Territory of Washington was organized 
March 2, 1853 — two days before President Pierce 
was inaugurated. Only three years before this, 
the Union was thought to be in danger. The 
throes of the body politic were keenly felt from 
the center to the extreme portion^ of the Union. 
But, luckily, the Union was saved by a string of 
compromises — one of which stopped the slave 
tradeinthe DistrictofColumbia; anotherof which 
admitted California into the Union as a free State; 
two others organized Utah and New Mexico, 
where slavery was already prohibited by the local 
or Mexican law, giving them permission to come 
into the Union, in proper time, as States, with 
or without slavery. What else occurred in the 
meantime? Ah, I have it. Two presidential 
conventions assembled, each resolving solemnly 
to abide by those compromises, every one of 
them. Was there any other new matter acted 
upon? No. What novel principle had taken 
such fast hold of the public judgment as to be in- 
troduced, by common consent, into the govern- 
ment of Washington Territory, tnaking the nation 
jubilant? Was it the prohibition of slavery 
therein ?'No, that is not the President's meaning, 
by a long shot. He finds no joy, nor consolation, 
nor hope of reward in thatdirection. His thoughts 
were running another way. The ingenuity of his 



mind lies in finding out the fact that this glorious 
principle of his had, by common consent, found 
Its way into Washington Territory. And when 
did he find this out ? It was news to Congress — 
news to the people. How did he keep so prom- 
inent a fact concealed for so long a time.' What 
evidence has he of this common consent ' I will 
tell you, Mr. Chairman, confidentially, what I 
think of it. I think that the authors of the bill 
for Washington Territory shot beyond the stone 
Ezel, as spoken of in the Bible, or overshot the 
mark. They were altogether too keen, or, to use 
a Yankee expression, too smai-t for themselves, 
and thus failed to accomplish what they intended. 
That they intended to leave off from Washington 
a wholesome restriction, long the settled policy 
of the Government as to Territories, I have not 
a doubt; and that the present President was let 
into the secret and safely kept it until he wrote 
his message, I have just as little doubt. 

What are the facts in the case ? Look at them. 
Oregon Territory was organized August 14, 1848, 
including what is now Washington Territory, 
and a part of the Oregon act reads as follows: 

" Sec. 14. Tliat the inhabitants of said Territory shall be 
entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and 
advantages granted and secured to the people of the Ter- 
ritory in the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by 
the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the 
government of said Territory, on tlie 13th day of July, 1787, 
and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions 
and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon 
the people of said Territory." 

Here the slavery prohibition, in the ^orm and 
express terms of a compact, unalterable, except 
by consent of all the parties, is extended over 
all Oregon, the north half of which is now Wash- 
ington Territory. It is not the ordinary " Wil- 
niot proviso," a simple act of legislation, but an 
expressly declared compact, unalterable and irre- 
pealable, except by the consent of all parlies 
interested. 

Mr. Chairman, I leave gentlemen to judge how 
far a compact can be impaired by an ordinary act 
of legislation. The shrewdness of the authors 
of the Washington territorial bill, specially 
known to the President and highly appreciated 
in secret for a long time, is to be found in the 
peculiar phraseology of the twelfth section of 
said bill. Here it is. Listen and ponder: 

".4nrf he it further enactetl. That the laws how in force 
in the Territory of Oregon by virtue of the legislation of 
Oingress, which have been enacted and passed suhsccfiicnl 
totke\.itdayofScptfmher,im3, * * * * be, and 
they are liereby, continued in foree in the Territory of 
Washington until they shall be repealed or amended by 
future legislation." 

By continuing in force the laws of Congress 
relating to Oregon, passed subsequent to the 1st 
day of September, 1848, the design of the framers 
of the Washington territorial bill was, manifestly 
and clearly, to shut out the organic law of Oregon 
passed August 14, 1848. Does anybody believe 
that ten members of Congress understood the ob- 
ject and purpose of this curious hiatus of sixteen 
days? And it is by such legisl.itioi) that a-" great 
principle" has been introduced into Washington 
Territory; to the general joy of the American 
people, as Mr. President Pierce, the self-appointed 



historian of th^ legislation of this country, would 
have it. 

I The organic law of Oregon, already referred to, 
j has never been repealed, as it regards Washington 
j Territory; and, although Congress did declare 
i that its laws passed subsequent to the 1st day of 
I September, 1848, should be in force in Washing- 
I ton Territory, it'does not necessarily follow that 
' other laws previously in force there are repealed. 
Far, very far from it. They stand, and will exer- 
! cise their binding force, in spite of the ingenious 
contrivance of the authors of the Washington 
territorial act, over wliich the President seems to 
think the whole country is rejoicing. 

I hardly can conjecture to what extent this Ad- 
ministration will carry its new doctrine of re- 
pealing laws by " superseding" them. It may 
be that the solemn compact extended over Wash- 
ingtoir Territory has been superseded. That the 
people may have their attention called particu- 
larly to this novel doctrine, I will recapitulate 
the instances of its application under the present 
Administration. 

The Missouri compromise of 1820 was " super- 
seded" by the compromise measures of 1850, 
but not known until 1854. 

The ordinance of 1787 extended over Oregon in 
1848, was " superseded" in 1853 by the Wash- 
ington territorial bill, but not known until 1856. 
The ordinance of 1787 was " superseded" by 
tlie Constitution of 1789, but not known until 
1856. 

It is at least a convement Executive doctrine, as 
it keeps the people in the dark. 

The next passage in the message which I shall 
notice is an extract from the Kansas and Ne- 
braska act, and the part which, ever since its en- 
actment, has been uttering, to this Administra- 
tion and its adherents, 

" Signs of woe, that all is lost." 

Until the repeal of the Missouri compromise, 
my own political associations had unwaveringly 
been with the Democratic parly; and as this pes- 
tiforous measure originated with Democrats, and 
became one of the tenets of the party, I felt im- 
peratively called upon to examine it with all the 
care its importance to the country seemed to me 
to demand, and, from my party associations and 
affinities, I reviewed and considered it from the 
! most favorable point, I am sure. In candor I 
i confess that I could find no merit in it, or any 
] thing to justify the very grave act of rejiealing 
1 the Missouri compromise, (which had stood re- 
i vered and nearly as sacred as the Constitution 
I itself by the whole people of the Union for some 
I thirty-four years,) and of reopening the slavery 
question, which had been so solemnly settled, ac- 
I cording to President Pierce's inaugural address, 
' I))' the compromise measures of 1850, I could 
rot .sanction or support it. I could not longer act 
with a party which would adopt it as a cardinal 
feature in its creed. I felt, as no doubt Mr. Pres- 
1 ident Pierci^ felt, when the measure v/as first 
s))rung in the Senate upon the country, and when 
his official mouth-piece, the Union newspaper, 
I repudiated and denounced it; but I held on to 
' my opposition to so unwise, unjust, and wrongful 



^1 



a measure, whilst the President and his official 
mouth-piece turned to the right-about face, and 
hugged and embraced the identical measure which 
they had, in good set terms, but a hltle while 
before, no doubt honestly, condemned. 

But beyond this, and as a graver question than 
even the repeal of this time-honored compact, 
there was a measure incorporated in that act by 
way of explaining or interpreting the intent of 
Congress in passing the act, more alarming in 
its character than any act of Congress since the 
foundation of the Government. I will now pro- 
ceed to strip this measure of the ingenious con- 
trivances of language to hide its meaning, and 
expose it in all "its enormity. 

I have always, Mr. Chairman, regarded slavery 
as a local, sectional, and not a national institu- 
tion, and that the nation not only had, but as was 
its duty to the spirit and the letter of the Consti- 
tution, always should avoid anything and every- 
thing even looking like a recognition of its nation- 
ality. 

But, sir, by the Kansas and Nebraska act 
slavery loas exjnesshj legalized within those Terri- 
tories. Now for the proof: 

•' It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to 
legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude 
it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free 
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitutiou of tlie United 
State?." 

What mere twaddle it is to contend that Con- 
gress does not intend to legislate slavery into the 
Territories. How could Congress legislate it in 
any more than it could legislate money in , or crime 
or virtue ? This form of expression is not incon- 
sistent with a system of legislation that would 
bring about a state of things by which slavery 
might slide into a Xefitory that was free. Slavery* 
was never legislated into any locality; but it has 
been taken in by virtue of legislation. 

Let us consider the other branch of this legis- 
lative-judicial interpretation. Congress has sol- 
emnly declared its true intent to be, not to exclude 
slavery from the Territories, but to leave the peo- 
}de thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way. 

A domestic institution may be the creature of law 
or a inere conventional regulation. A family, a 
school, a church, a state of servitude, is a domes- 
tic institution. In fact, the word domestic, from 
domus, a house, or home, residence, or family, as 
domestic concerns, domestic life, domestic duties, 
domestic affairs, domestic happiness, domestic 
worship, and in a substantive sense, " one \vho 
lives in the family of another, a servant or hired 
laborer," excludes the idea of a legal institution. 
Congress did not sa}' they intended to leave the 
people free to form and regulate their institutions 
in their own way. If they had, it would have 
been taken to be such institutions as are formed 
and regulated by law— not conventional or self- 
formed: but by the .introduction of the word 
" domestic," which, in it% place in this law, was 
and is understood and intended to comprehend 
slavery alone. Congress has inaugurated a new 
principle of legislation for Territories, essentially 
differing from the doctrine of non-intervention. 



It is only by a careful consideration of alLthe 
terms in this " stump speech" in the act, that we 
are enabled to arrive at its " true intent and mean- 
ing." "To form," in its connection, can only 
signify to introduce or establish. Wherein " the 
people" are authorized " to form" their domestic 
institutions, inasmuch as the formation of such 
institutions does not require the intervention of 
legislation, the law regards " the people" as fn- 
dividuals, and not collectively, as a community, 
acting under the forms of law. Again: wherein 
" th€ people" are authorized " to regulate" such 
institutions, it is equally clear that Congress in- 
tended such regulation should be by " the peo- 
ple" collectively. The people of slave States indi- 
vidually "form" their domestic institutions; col- 
lectively, as represented in the Legislature, they 
regulate them. 

Before the repeal of the Missouri compromise, 
slavery was prohibited in Kansas and Nebraska; 
and, according to my understanding of- the law, 
slavery can exist legally only by express legis- 
lation permitting it; so that, if Congress had con- 
tented itself with simply repealing the prohibi- 
tion, slavery could not legally have existed in the 
Territories in question. 

Now, to put this law to a practical test, to de- 
termine whether Congress has legalized slavery 
in thfi Territories, and thus given to it nationality 
of character, I will put a case. 

Dr. Stringfellow's slave Catosnes out a writ of 
habeas corpus before Judge Lecompte to procure 
his freedom on the ground that slavery is not 
recognized by the organic law. On the hearing, 
the judge examines the law, and finds, in section 
twenty -three thereof, that he has been required, 
in his oath of office, to swear that he would sup- 
port the Constitution of the United States and 
the provisions of the Kansas and Nebraska act. 
He then turns to the thirty -second section, and 
reads that Coiigress has declared that they did not 
intend or mean to exclude slavery from the Territory, 
but to leave every man ivho emigrated to it perfectly 
free to bring his own domestic institutions icith him, 
and that the Territorial Legislature is invested 
with povjer to regulate such institutions. The 
judge turns to Cato and says to him, " I am sworn 
to support this law of Congress, and cannot dis- 
charge you." 

Stripped of all disguise, this modern Democratic 
doctrine of " popular sovereignty" amounts to 
this: the extension of slavery into free Territories, 
by stealthy legislation, or by ruffian force. Each 
successive extension is a triumph of the Consti- 
tution antl the Union, in the estimation of the 
President, or it %vas so, previously to the assem- 
bling of the late Cincinnati Convention. And yet 
he tells us that the scope and effect of the repeal 
of the Missouri compromise was not left in doubt. 
Does it, or will he, tell us whether slavery can go 
into the Territory or not.' Does it, or will he, tell 
us whether or not the Territorial Legislature can 
establish or prohibit slavery .' The doctrine main- 
tained by our southern brethren is, that neither 
Congress nor the Territorial Legislature have the 
constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the 
Territories. The Democrats of the North main- 
tain that there is nothing in the Kansas and 



Nebraska bill which authorizes slavery, while 
some contend that the sovereignty conferred upon 
the people of the Territory is to legislate upon the 
subject of slavery, pro and con., and others still 
insist that no legislation can be had on the subject. 
Some there are who maintain that the act means 
slavery, and others that it means freedom. All 
these views, with others too numerous to name, 
are divided and subdivided into innumerable 
grades and shades, so that scarcely any two minds 
can be found to agree in the matter. And still 
the President proclaims that the scope and intent 
of this famous and iniquitous act were not left in 
doubt ! 

" And he played upon the harp of a thousand strings, 
Sperits of just men made perfec." 

Mr. Chairman, I have now done with the 
President, so far as relates to his historical legis- 
lative facts and omissions; but I shall endeavor 
to hold him up to the public as he is, and to 
place before him his own mirror, that he may 
take a retrospective glance at himself. 1 call at- 
tention to another part of his message, and it is 
a most humiliating duty that I now feel called on 
to perform. When I look back no longer ago than 
the year 1852, two years after the passage of the 
fugitive slave law, when the two great political 
parties of the country, comprising nearly our 
entire population, manifesting a spirit " that man- 
kind are more disposed to suffer while evils are 
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing 
the forms to which they are accustomed," agreed 
to abide by the compromises of 1850, as a. finality, 
and that, under this agreement, the present Chief 
Magistrate of the nation was elected by an un- 
precedented majority, my heart sickens at his 
subsequent political depravity. He has to answer 
for a willful and audacious violation of the solemn 
promise he made to the country, and upon which 
he was elected to the Presidency. He has to an- 
swer for a gross and sudden violation of the 
promise he made in his inaugural address, at the 
time he was sworn into office, that he would 
take care to see the compromise measure, to stop 
agitation on the slavery question, and to give 
peace to the country, and all other laws, faith- 
fully executed. Instead of keeping his sworn 
pledge, he has reopened the old controversy, 
greatly fomented and embittered public feeling, 
and forfeited the respect of the people. ■ 

The President's course having involved him in 
difficulties, he seeks to extricate himself by mis- 
statements, suppressions, and false reasonings; 
and to divert attention from his own. perfidy, 
charges back upon America's freemen who halt 
from following him in his iniquitous career, cal- 
umnies like the following: 

" It has benn a matter of painful regret to see States con- 
spicunus for their services in foundiiiji this Republic, and 
equally sharing its advantages, disregard their constitutional 
obhgations to it. Althoush conscious of their inahihty to 
heal aiiiiiiltid and palpaiili^ social evils of their own,alld 
which ari' cuinplrirly uiihin Ihcir jurisdiction, they engage 
ill Ihi; <ill'iriM\c nuA linpcli-s undertaking of reforming the 
domestic iri-iiiiiiif)n> nf other Stati's, wholly beyond their 
control anil aiiiliurity. In the vain (inrsuit of ends, by 
them entirely unattainable, and which tliey may not legally 
attempt to compass, they peril the very existence of the 
constitution, and all the cotiiitlcss bei'ietits which it has 
conferred. While the people of the southern Slates confine 



I their attention to their own affairs, not presuming officiously 
to intermeddle with the social institutions of the northern 

I States, too many of the inhabitants of the latter are perma- 
nently organized in associations to inflict injury on the 

I former by wrongful acts, which would be the cause of war 
as between foreign powers, and only fail to be such in our 

j system because perpetrated under cover of the union. 
" Is it possible to present this subject as truth and the 
occasion require without noticing the reiterated butground- 

I less allegation, that the South has pejsistently asserted 

! claims and obtained advantajes in the practical admini-tra- 
tion in the General Government to the prejudice of the 
North, and in which the latter has acquiesced? That is, 
the States which either promote or tolerate attacks on the 
rights of persons and of property in other States, to disguise 
theirown injustice, pretend, orimagine, and constantly aver 
that they whose constitutional rights are thus systematically 
assailed, are themselves the aggressors. ;^ the present time, 
this i mputed aggression , resting, as it does, only in the vague 
declamatory charges of political agitators, resolves itself 
into misapprehension or misrepresentation of the principles 
and facts of the political organization of the new Territo- 

I ries of the United States." 

I Mr. Chairman, much of this I have answered, 
i and I do not read it now so much to comment 
I upon it, as to call to it especial attention — to ren- 
I der it conspicuous. Do States disregard their 
i constitutional obligations by enacting laws to 
[ compel postmasters to rifle the mails — by passing 
I laws to imprison free citizens of other States be- 
i cause of their color, and then to sell them into 
i slavery to pay their jail fees ? Is not the thrust- 
i ing of slavery upon Kansas, Ity ruffians of slave 
[ States, a departure of attention from their own 
affairs, and an officious intermeddling with social 
j institutions of other localities? Is the formation 
i of an association to correct public sentiment 
! by moral suasion and the spread of truth, just 
cause of war? Has the South no advantage in 
the practical administration of the General Gov- 
ernment, when, by the settled policy of the Senate 
for more than a quarter of a century, no northern 
' man whp has spoken the truth of slavery can 
] pass the ordeal of its approval .' 
! There was a time when every American felt a 
generous glow of conscious pride at the reflection 
that the assertion, " I am an Ainerican citizen," 
assured him esteem, respect, and safety at home 
and abroad; but since an American President has 
sent forth to the world such a inessage, that gen- 
erous glow of conscious pride comes back no 
more — his manhood sinks beneath the degrada- 
tion, and his self-respect forbids the utterance of 
j the once proud exclamation, " I am an American 
I citizen," even as a passport in a foreign land. 
I It is a new and a curious idea which the south- 
ern portion of the present Congress, with the 
Executive, entertain, that all who favor the ex- 
; tension of slavery in any way are the thoughtful 
1 friends of the Union, the true lovers of the coun- 
try, the real defenders of the Constitution, the 
true and only patriots of the land. This is the 
burden of the song which the President sings 
all through his message, whilst he stigmatizes 
as " fanatics," " agitators," "disturbers of the 
peace," " enemies of the Constitution," &c., all 
those who love freedom better than slavery, the 
prosperity of the country better than their own 
indolent ease, and who believe that the Constitu- 
tion was framed and intended to secure the bless- 
ings of liberty, and who would defend the Terri- 
tories against the blighting curse of slavery. 



But, sir, the issue is made up. This new party 
test of " popular sovereignty." alias slavery ex- 
tension, that has been inaugurated by this Admin- ! 
istration, has gathered to its support the federal 
office-holders — the conservative men, par excellence, 
whether Whigs or Democrp^ts — all the old fogies 
— and, stealing 

"The livery of the court of Heaven to serve tlie Devil in," 

they take the name of Democracy, and agree to 
support James Buchanan, in every aspect a most 
appropriate candidate for such a fusion. He is 
Federal, he is conservative, both Whig and Dem- 
ocrat, and is eminently an old fogy. The con- 
vention that nominated him adopted a platform 
of about this purport: 

1. Opposition to the improvement of rivers 
and harbors. 

2. Opposition to a national bank. 

3. In favor of the veto power. 

4. Free religion. 

5. Slavery is national. 

6. The fugitive slave law must be enforced at 
all hazards. 

7. JVo more agitation of the slavery question. 

8. Indorses Kentucky and Virginia resolu- 
tions of 1799. 

9. Supports Missouri border ruffianism, and in 
favor of extending slavery into Kansas by such 
means. 

10. Compromise measures of lb50. 

11. New States with or without slavery. 

12. Kansas and Nebraska ditto. 

13. In favor of free seas and free trade the 
world over, except the Gulf of Mexico, which 
shall be free only to America. 

14. Europe, Asia, and Africa, keep hands off 
from the western hemisphere, or we'll fight. 
We are the biggest toad in this puddle, and can 
manage all the tad-poles if let alone. 

15. We want Cuba; we are strong enough to 
take her; therefore she is ours. 

16. We v/ill support Walker's government. 

17. In favor of building a railroad to Califor- 
nia, but for the Constitution. 

I believe this enumeration presents, not un- 
fairly, the spiritof the Cincinnati platform; seven 
of the seventeen points go to show their attach- 
ment to slavery. 

In process of fusion and to |^ fused with this 
party, is the Know Nothing or American party, 
with Millard Fillmore as its nominee for the time 
being. As this party, like the Buchanan party, 
makes slavery the leading or controlling element 
in its creed, and being the weaker, it will natu- 
rally fuse with the stronger. As evidence of 
what it will do in the future, we may judge by 
, the past and present*. In the contest in this 
House these two parties fused in their votes for 
Speaker, on Smith of Virginia, Oliver of Mis- 
souri, Porter of Missouri, and Aiken of South 
Carolina. Since the election of Speaker, on all 
questions where slavery was in any way involved, 
they have acted together as naturally as if they 
were consolidated. In the Brdbks, Keitt, and 
Herbert cases, they were together. In the con- 
tested-election cases of Allen and Archer, of Illi- 
nois, of Chapman and Bennett of Nebraska, of 



Whitfield and Reeder of Kansas, they cooperated. 
In the Senate, Benjamin, Jones, Feared, and 
Pratt, have gone over to Buchanan. In view of 
these facts, for all practical purposes of the ap- 
proaching presidential election, it is safe to say 
that the Know Nothings, or American party, will 
unite with the pro-slavery Buchanan party. 

Opposed to this combination the people have 
presented Colonel John C. Fremont, upon a plat- 
form embodying the following declaration of prin- 
ciples: 

1. Opposition to the extension of slavery into 
free Territories, the admission of Kansas as a 
free State, and the restoration of the Government 
to the principles of Washington and Jefferson. 

2. Maintenance of the right to life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness, as the chief end of gov- 
ernment. 

3. Congress has no power under the Constitu- 
tion to legalize slavery in the Territories. 

4. It is the duty of Congress to prohibit polyg- 
amy and slavery in the Territoi-ies. 

5. That it is our duty to punish the frauds, 
outrages, and usurpations in Kansas. 

6. In i^vor of river and harbor improvements. 

7. In favor of the Pacific railroad. 

Mr. Chairman, this movement of the people to 
bring the Government back to the control of first 
principles, is imperiously demanded on account 
of the wickedness of this Ailministration. It is 
no party movement — no contest, as of old, be- 
tween Whigs ami Democrats, about questions of 
bank and tariil^- out, sir, it is a struggle for civil 
liberty — for the rights of man. It reaches fun- 
damental principles, the very foundation of our 
Government. It is to decide whether the best 
energies — indeed the entire powerof this Govern- 
ment shall be devoted to the perpetuation of lib- 
erty or slavery. There is no half-way work — no 
half-way house — no compromise in this struggle. 
It is the beginning of the end, and " may God 
prosper the right!" 

Colonel John C. Fremont, of all men, is tAc 
man for the crisis. He is no hackneyed poli- 
tician, but is fresh from the people. The laurels 
that crown his brow were earned in no partisan 
contest, but were awarded hiai by the entire 
country for his achievements in science — his in- 
trepidity of character — his vast discoveries — for 
benefits conferred upon his country and the world. 
He opened up to view and settlement a vast empire 
in the West. He scaled the Rocky Mountains, 
and at his bidding California sprang in to existence, 
and now out of her abundance is filling the world 
with wealth. His spirit hovered over her in her 
infancy, and taught her the lessons of freedom. 
He discovered and pointed out the " passes" 
through which she has received her population. 
He brought her into the sisterhood of States, 
and, as United States Senator, provided her with 
wholesome laws. He has called the commerce 
of Asia across the Pacific to our western shore. 
By his own almost unaided achievements, he has 
established a world-wide reputation for himself, 
reflecting honor and glory upon his country. 

" In the bright lexicon of youth, 
Which fate reserves for a glorious manhood, 
There is no such word as fail .'" 



J 



8 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



This was his motto in early life, and most faith- 
fully has he lived up to it. When stout hearts 
quailed and weather-beaten cheeks blanched, his 
cry was "onward!" and his career has been on- 
ward and upward, surmounting all difficulties. 
The voice of resolution kept uttering within him, 
" there is no such word as fail." His character 
(for it is formed) belongs to the American people, 
and if we desired a model for youth to follow, 
we need notgo abroad for the contribution. If it 
wereasked, "Whathashe done that should entitle 



011 897 439 b 



him to be Pi 

MADE HIMSEI 

Fremont has 
fame — its we 
done more ? 

The energy and endurance of a Bonaparte — 
the intellect of a Jefferson — the firmness of a 
Jackson, are qualities ho possesses, fitting him 
for the exalted station of Chief Magistrate, and 
are requisite to recover for our common country 
the glory that has been lost by mal-administration . 



Printed at the OfBce of the Congressional Globe. 




011897 439 6^1 



^ 



HOLUNGER 
pH8J 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



